I picked up my free 'sampler' copy of The Economist this morning from the cheery chaps who seem to be outside my tube station every day now. (Despite honing their freesheet skills on Stylist, Shortlist, Sport and The Evening Standard they were struggling to give this one away.)
Having read it on the journey in, I can only imagine the editorial meeting that resulted in this 22-page taster.
"Let's give away a free copy of The Economist, with stuff in that'll win new readers."
"How about just giving next week's away for free?"
"Nah - we need to act cool. So, you know, they buy us next time."
"Well... We did that article about legalising drugs, like, in March?"
"Brilliant. Stick it in. And how about that article we did about Heathrow where we suggested the third runway was a bad idea and called Gordon Brown 'as noxious as a jet engine's exhaust'?"
"The kids'll go crazy! And let's reprint that one we did in the summer about the Greek trying to steal stuff from the British Library. Just in case we get some arty types."
"Hmm. But what about the finance pages? What if they think we go on too much about economics?"
"Don't worry - there's that one we wrote the global prices of Big Macs in July. They'll dig that."
"Awesome. Now let me just rustle up an editor's letter that explains what a 'leader' is..."
What I cannot figure out is why put in an obit as well? I mean, sure, show the format, but surely they could have come up with a replacement back page...
Posted by: CJWarnock | Nov 09, 2009 at 09:51
What's bizzare about this free edition is that as a subscriber I got a copy with my full copy. Why waste the money? I'm already a subscriber, I don't need to be sold again...
Posted by: Mike Hill | Nov 09, 2009 at 10:45
In fairness to the Economist, they have campaigned for a long timefor the legalisation of drugs, and make the call fairly regularly.
Posted by: No | Nov 09, 2009 at 13:12
There is a curious reverse psychology working for me here.
I didn't take one because I genuinely believe I don't want my Economist for free, especially not if that means encouraging an Economist 'Lite'.
I almost subsconsiously avoided them the same way I would a market stall boasting £5 Rolex watches, or £5 bottles of Champagne.
The Economist exists - and has fared well - on a reputation of being worth the money. To erode that cachet would be dangerous.
Posted by: Ian | Nov 09, 2009 at 13:34
Surely this is for people that don't normally read it, to encourage them to do so?
In which case, surely some stuff can be recycled?
Although the fact that subscribers got it too is bizarre.
Posted by: pete | Nov 09, 2009 at 14:00
A good move to provide some intelligent reading to a public whose mind is increasingly being polluted by tabloid junk and reality TV
Posted by: Gonzo | Nov 09, 2009 at 14:05
If just a handful of commuters are weaned off the celebrity focused and intellectually debased offerings currently available long may this initiative continue… And if the Economist benefits commercially. Bonus !
Posted by: Rob | Nov 10, 2009 at 09:58